Page 1317 - Driving Ban Simulation 1

➢ The judge was not happy with the statement as there was no date and timed marked, PC G said to the Judge
that the statement he was using was a copy, it was my son barrister said there seemed to be a time on the
back. My son's barrister had also PC G about the ticket issues and PC G said he did
3421,
not have it in court, the judge stated at the start of the hearing he was on the understanding the notebook had
been used.
➢ The judge was really not happy and told PC G to leave the court room but not the court building, and that he
wanted all the original document in court for him to see regarding this case.
➢ The judges heard the summing up and went out to decide.
➢ The CPS went outside in this time I believe to speak to PC G.
➢ As when the Judges came back in and said my son had won his appeal and that he was not happy with what
had gone on in this case, the CPS stated to the judge this was a paper-based file case and things get mislaid
in this sort of files.
➢ The judge asked if the audio could be kept and placed on file in case it needed to be used later.
➢ Which we agreed to, and we then left the court. It was not until we got the 1st report from the DPS, and the
notebook was in there that it was confirmed there was in fact a notebook all a long so why did PC G lie to us
and the judges saying it was only a proforma and the statement he wrote when he got back to the police
station.
➢ Until we got the DPS report the only word we had that PC G used his notebook on that day was my son.
➢ And I am sorry, but it does not cut it that PC G could get away with saying his arrest was needed due to
uncertainty as to the address provided.
➢ When a person is stopped or spoken to the police like my son was a radio check would be carried out to
check to see if the person was wanted or anything else.
➢ The police have my son's address on their system so the address my son gave would have been checked and
shown as correct on the police system.
➢ My son did not need to lie he give PC G his insurance cert with no problem he had done nothing wrong, so
would have had no need to give a wrong address as he would know it would have shown on the police
system, why would my son say he was homeless? It was not my son that lied it was PC G and I believe that
has already been proven.
➢ I believe 3 weeks is enough time for PC G to come forward and is acceptable.
➢ If the inspector had done his job when he come to the road side when my son asked if one could have been
called this could have all been avoided, but instead he just went with what the police officer said and did not
brother to check what my son was saying.
➢ Something always come to mind here and that is what was written in the subject access request I got back
from my son's insurance company, this was after the time we spent trying to stop the insurance company
cancelling my son's insurance and going to courts.
➢ When I saw this, it hurt as we knew the police had not told the truth and in the subject access request there
was nothing to say my son was not in the wrong.
➢ There was no sorry there was nothing and this is just wrong.
➢ My son was the one that had the bad mark against his name for a long time until it was proven in the appeal
court, not the police officer and this is still the case to this day the police officer has done nothing wrong in
everyone's eyes when he did do wrong.
➢ He has been allowed to move on in his life, my son was the one spending all the time to clear his name not
the police officer when my son had done nothing wrong. "[ ...] Which is obviously ... we're in an awkward
situation as well because [Data Subject] and [Data Subject] mum is constantly ringing us up.
➢ They don't understand that obviously we are going to take a police officer's views over obviously one of our
policyholders because obviously a police officer's job is obviously to tell the truth and not to lie."
➢ This is the action of most people’s view but in this case the police officer was not telling the truth my son
was. And my son was the one being made to suffer when he had not done anything wrong.
➢ But yet people believe the police in everything they say.